Tru11

16 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And your words were that I'm allowed manipulate all I want, so am I allowed to or are you taking that back now too? I'll let you think about it and you let me know.

Its up to you and you alone whether YOU care about what I say. You'll have to attempt to formulate some kind of decision on your own on that one. I mean its not like anybody is sitting there saying "hey you know who probably has wisdom about the Ravens... that Tru11 guy". 

I'm just here to point out lapses in intelligent/common sense and blatant hypocrisy. Care about it, don't care about, doesn't matter. That's on you.

You can do whatever you want.

fact remains you where talking about 60-70 yard scoring drives.

fact remains my replies use that as the basis.

nothing more and nothing less.

if all of a sudden you want to talk about all drives and make it 59-70 rather then 60-70 then you are free to do as you please.

just proofs to me you where talking out of your butt from the start.

so either stick to what you said or change its up.

5 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well there is harm... it stops the clock, which is one of the last things we want happening there. That's why people are advocating to run the ball, because it doesn't matter if you really score a TD or not. You run the ball 2-3 times and kick a FG, and you're up by 13 with like 4 minutes left.

Keep the clock running and protect the ball. That's the only thing you need to do there.

stopping the clock is not worse then a TO, stop making a fool out of yourself

1 minute ago, The Mom Gene said:

Oh YEAH, I agree also....  The play should have been changed at the line.  Joe should have audibled a run call.

or just throw it away if the play is not there?

no harm in throwing it out of the back of the endzone if nobody is open.

TO was the worst possible outcome.
Only thing worse would be Flacco landing on IR making the tackle or getting sacked by holding on to the pass.

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

LOL it doesn't matter to me if its a scoring drive or less. What, if a team drives 70 yards down to the 10 yard line and misses a FG then that's a good defensive performance? Of course not.

I care about long drives period. I care about letting a team go 40-50 yards down the field. Whether that team decides to pass up a 50 yard FG on a windy day and try to convert 2 yards instead is up to them... that's not a reflection of the defense, its a reflection of the weather or the lack of confidence in their kicker. 

One of the main reasons why our defense doesn't look like a bunch of fools after yesterday is because they came up with a couple of critical very shortage stops. One was at the 34 yard line in the 4th quarter, when the Eagles passed up a 51 yard FG to make it a 7 point game and went for it on 4th and 2. We stopped them. 

The second was obviously the last play of the game, where we stopped a 2 point conversion after giving up a long drive for a TD that involved basically no running plays.

Can whine and complain about turnovers all day long. They scored a lot more points off of bad defense than they did off of Joe turning the ball over. 

4 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Was just saving the defense the embarrassment of another 60-70 yard scoring drive that the defense would have given up as they get manhandled up and down the field.

your words not mine

its however noted that it does not matter to you what you say yourself.

it you dont care about what you say yourself then why should anyone else care about what you say.

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

But you gave me permission to manipulate didn't you? So I manipulated that down to 59 yards, as you requested.

And then I manipulated down your baseless "50 yards is a long drive" argument because you never even started to think it through or come up with what an actual "long drive" in the NFL should even look like. 

If you at least had a better argument, manipulating yours wouldn't be this simple. But it is, as I've shown several times now.

59 yards is a fact.
you did not manipulate it down to that.

stop talking none sense.

you tried to manipulate other with your 60-70 yard crap but the fact remains that 59 does not fall in the 60-70 range.
you did not manipulate a damm thing , you where just talking out of your butt saying that.

also you where talking about scoring drives and not drives in general.
unless you can proof the eagles had a scoring drive of 40 yards then stop talking none sense.

i used close to 50 yards because the the eagles had a 49 yard scoring drive.
in case you dont know 50 is very close to 49.

fact remains that you where talking about 60-70 yards scoring drives.
i am simply addressing what you said.

if you forgot i can quote it for you.



 

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

So you picked 50 because you realized that if you picked 40 (which could easily be considered a long drive as well) that your narrative wouldn't work?

Got it. That's all I needed to know.

Next time, just shoot for the moon. Say that it must be 80 yards to be a long drive or something even more absurd to make your argument look more viable. I mean if you're going to begin, continue, and end with shear subjectivity, max out on it. 

40 was not option since they had 0 scoring drives of around 40 yards.

they had 1 from around 49 and another was 16.

that is why i said close to 50 because you know 49 is close to 50.....

Just now, rmcjacket23 said:

And the lesson would be that I can manipulate statistics to make your narrative look bad better than you can. I did that at least twice above.

And the audience sees that as well.

you can manipulate what ever you want.

the fact remains you talked about scoring drives of 60-70 yards and more and the eagles only had 1 of those drives that ended in a FG.

 

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Sometimes you just have to dumb it down for the audience...

pretty much backfired since some of your audience apparently knew the facts better then you did.

probably a good lesson for the next time.
 

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Was just saving the defense the embarrassment of another 60-70 yard scoring drive that the defense would have given up as they get manhandled up and down the field.

9 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Why did you choose 50 yards as the metric for a "long drive"? What's the basis for that?

Perhaps if we put some numbers behind this it would help you a bit...

For the Ravens defense, averaging starting field position on the season is the 28 yard line. So we would expect the Eagles to, on average, start at the 28 yard line when they received the ball. Knowing this, any drive that netted them roughly 40 yards or longer would put them in a position to kick a reasonable FG (less than 50 yards). 40 yards would put the ball at the 32 yard line. 

So it would seem more reasonable that your metric for a "long drive" would be significantly shorter than 50 yards, because in most cases, a mere 40 yard drive would result in points allowed for the defense. 

So, if I do like you did, and just apply some subjective yardage number to my analysis to try to push my narrative (though I at least have some statistical backing for my subjectivity), we now go from 4/11 "long" drives to 6/11 "long" drives, which is over 50% of the time. 

And perhaps most importantly... 5 of 5 drives in the 2nd half were ALL at least 40+ yard drives by the Eagles.

the basis was you talking about scoring drives and not drives in general.
 

11 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Cute try.

If I had one single yard to that range and make it 59-70 yard scoring drive, we can go ahead and add another two drives and nine points to that list.

17 plays, 59 yards for a FG.

13 plays, 79 yards for a FG.

11 plays, 49 yards for a FG... off an INT that put them at their own 40, which evidently is an insurmountable distance for the defense to recover from.

9 plays, 59 yards for a TD.

This ain't hard to understand folks.

it is for you apparently.

if it wasn't that hard you would have said it from the start since you love to lecture everyone and pride yourself on thinking you are right all the time.

1 minute ago, ravensdfan said:

We got it on our own 39 and our own 34 on those turnovers on downs. That's good field position - it isn't excellent.

Facts say they had a 59 yd drive for a TD - so going after someone for a difference of a yd is being disengenous.

Facts also say that after the offense had a scoring drive of over 5 mins the defense promptly allowed a 7 minute scoring drive by the Eagles. I guess they were tired from being on the sidelines. They also gave up nearly another 8 minute scoring drive.

They were also given (yet again!) a 10 pt lead into the 4th quarter. Thank the Eagles for going for 2 there and throwing the ball rather than running it. They also got gashed for over 169 yds on the ground. Not surprised you forget to mention those things.

 

 

 

 

its excellent field position cause if they went for a punt you would start at your own 20 which would have been considered good.
NFL punters can pin a team inside their 5 yard line and with such a short field to the endzone it makes the job easier.

Call me whatever you want but the facts are what they are.

I have not said anything about fatigue so you might wanna quote the person you want to discuss that with.

Why should i mention any of that when i was not discussing any of it?

The lead could have been bigger if flacco did not throw that stupid pick.
Could have been at least a 13 point lead which would have forced the eagles to go for the TD rather then settle for the FG.
They had 0 of these prior to their last drive.

I had actually little issue with them running the ball TBH.
It keeps the clock running.
Perhaps the offense can learn a thing or 2 from this since they cant even pick up a first down or burn at least half a minute when needed.

fact remains of the eagles 4 long drives they only scored 15 points.
15 points is pretty darn good in today NFL.

the eagles other 7 drives only netted them 11 points with 8 coming after a fumble which only had them needed to go 8 yards for a TD.
the other 3 points came after the only needed 16 yards to be in FG range.


 

21 minutes ago, ravensdfan said:

 Matthews was just running right through them so it just felt like 60 or 70 yd drives. The defense forced 2 punts in the first quarter and not another.

Furthermore, when one drive was 79 yds (ending in a FG) and another was 59 yds (ending in a TD) you're being pretty disengenous making the claim that the ONLY 60-70 yd drive ended in a FG. Please.

The defense couldn't get off the field to save their lives despite the fact that the Eagles handed off to Matthews 90% of the time- and it certainly was not the fault of the offense.

i dont care about your emotions.
how you feel has nothing to do with this.

facts say only 1 drive covered 60+ yards and it only went for a FG.

not my fault he picked the wrong numbers in his reply.

also the defense forced 1 turnover which pray to the sun ended in a TD.
they also forced 2 turnovers on down giving the offense excellent field position.

so they did a lot more then those 2 drives when they forced a punt.
not a surprise you conveniently forgot to mention that....

4 out of the eagles 11 drives can be considered long covering close to 50 or more yards.
only 1 ended in a TD while the other 3 ended in FGs.
it counted 15 of the eagles 26 points.

guess where the other 11 points came from ....

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Was just saving the defense the embarrassment of another 60-70 yard scoring drive that the defense would have given up as they get manhandled up and down the field.

funny cause the only 60-70 yard scoring drive the eagles had ended in a FG.
they had 11 drives not counting the 1 before half time.

might wanna check them facts before spouting anymore none sense.

nothing wrong with the call.

issue was the pathetic execution by the 9th year QB.

all he had to do was not turn the ball over.
we where well within JT range and thus anything other then a turnover would have been fine....

7 minutes ago, RaineV1 said:

The thing is, we won the game because of Joe throwing that perfect pass to SSS. He was the one that gave us a lead in the first place.

was the least he could do after fumbling giving the eagles the ball at our own 8 yard line which lead to their first TD....

2 hours ago, PurpleCity5 said:

No improvements? I disagree, run attack was never a big part of the offensive element to begin with. But I don't think you can deny that big plays and the play of Joe has elevated. I think guys around Joe like Dixon and Breshad have become a bigger part of the offense as well. We've also had two games in which we won by double digits, something that hasn't been done since 2014. 

the way he played against the pats is your idea of him elevating his game?
 

13 minutes ago, RaineV1 said:

A defense that relies entirely on one player isn't that good. When a single corner goes down teams shouldn't suddenly be able to pass the ball at will. Besides, it's not like those throws weren't also against guys that would be starting with or without Jimmy in there. Besdies, the Pats put up nearly three hundred yards in the first half, and Jimmy was in there for that.

The Ravens have PFF's top safety in Weddle. Webb is a competent SS. People rave about how good Young is. Mosley has greatly improved in coverage, and people say Orr is playing at a near probowl level. Sugges is healthy, Doom came back, and Judon is the big midround find. The d-line is supposedly great. But apparently all that turns to trash the second Jimmy Smith isn't there.

Corners and pass rushers are the premium positions on defense.

anytime you loose your top player at either of those positions you will suffer.

it goes for every team in the NFL.

6 hours ago, kjbmore said:

I don't really have faith in this defense.

Realise the Offense constantly puts them in tough spots but against top flight opposition with the game on the line - I have very little faith they'll get a stop

vs Pats, vs Cowboys, vs Giants, vs Raiders

#1 d and when it mattered we gave up a 1 play TD 

yeah I'm just not really feeling the ranking 

playing the Browns twice a year, plus the jags, jets, Dolphins, bills  probably has more to do with it than our defense actually being that good

i don't even feel we're in the top 5 or 6 defenses

Sea, Den, Pats, KC, Min

hope the boys bring and show out to close out the season

im more inclined to think we give up big plays like the hogan TD on the weekend

prove me wrong

Offense plays the same crappy teams to and they still sucked.

8 hours ago, ravensdfan said:

lmbo Don't know why coordinators ever get fired then right? Since nothing is their fault or responsibility.

Coordinators get fired when their scheme does not work and the gameplan they install for every game fails to produce.

They oversee the entire unit.

The coaching for the players individually however fall on the position coaches.

The reason why Kubiak scheme worked was because he was allowed to bring in his own staff and they did instructed the players to the letter Kubiak wanted.

Not every coordinator has that luxury though.

 

7 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Nine total plays accounted for 275 of his passing yards. NINE. Nearly half of that yardage came on busted plays where the secondary completely didn't cover a player on three plays.

That means for a total of 29 other passing plays, Brady passed for 129 yards. That's a little over 4.0 YPA.

I will fully admit Brady had some good throws, but the biggest issue was players were flat out missing assignments and it led to massive gains. You don't make those mistakes against a quarterback as smart as Brady. He may not be a super physically gifted player, but he's a very smart one.

yup.

even the perfect game plan will fail if players dont excecute what they where supposed to do.

goes for every single facet of the game.

41 minutes ago, Steve0x said:

This is why Dean Pees should be fired 

http://www.nbcsports.com/video/tom-brady-throws-400-yards-against-baltimore-ravens?cid=Yahoo&p=ya5nbcs&yptr=yahoo

400 YARDS!!! Against our Defense!!!

This proves Dean Pees doesn't have a clue how to run a defense. 

 

79 of those came on 1 play tnx to weddle.

using your logic i take it you want him cut and banned from getting near the ravens since he does not know how to play defense?

2 minutes ago, kjbmore said:

Ok contributing factor to Elam being on the field

if jimmy doesn't go done - wright goes to outside, tavon goes to cover powers spot, Webb stays where he is and Elam is never on the field.

its ok though, hope you felt better pointing out how wrong I am

have a nice day

what was wrong with having elam on the field?

20 minutes ago, ravensdfan said:

Yes we agreed on that - but, still, who exactly is responsible for coaching the defense?

coaches that work underneath the coordinator....

how many times do people have to say this before you get it?

2 hours ago, eze17 said:

No ones saying he needs to be a lock down safety...he just needs to be able to provide decent pass coverage and open field tackling, which he has not shown on a consistent basis. I keep saying he's good against the run, he simply looks out matched when it comes to passing downs. Watch some film. Does he show flashes of being good? Sure. A blind pig will find an acorn in the forest every now and then. But overall he gets beat way to often, and takes bad angles when trying to make tackles. And the guy is not a rookie, so you expect that he is what he is ever going to be: Good run defender but can be burnt on passing downs. Not saying he can't play in the NFL, but it's unrealistic to think he's going to morph into something he's not.

he had decent pass coverage on that play.

do you even know what you where watching?

i take it some on you are still unwilling to acknowledge that tom brady will be going down as 1 of the greatest if not the greatest QB to ever play the game.

this is the best the QB the defense has seen all season and will be the best QB they will see all season unless they see each other again the play offs.

i feel little shame in getting beat by a guy who is in the conversation of being the MVP at age 39 and is a sure fire first ballot HOF.

it could have gotten much worse if the pats receivers did not drop so many passes and their special teams did not fumble the ball away.
 

i mean even weddle fell for a fake even though he knew it was going to be a fake.

its hilarious how people brag when the offense beats up on a scrappy secondary  then gets outraged when the defense gets torched by 1 of the greatest QBs of all times.....